People v. O'Neil

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. O'Neil

152 A.D.2d 966, 544 N.Y.S.2d 761, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9870

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 12, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 152 A.D.2d 966 (People v. O'Neil) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. O'Neil, 152 A.D.2d 966, 544 N.Y.S.2d 761, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9870 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Ford, 66 NY2d 428, 437), the evidence amply supports the verdict. Credibility of the witnesses was for the jury to resolve (see, People v De Tore, 34 NY2d 199, 206-207, cert denied sub nom. Wedra v New York, 419 US 1025; People v Christian, 139 AD2d 896, Iv denied 71 NY2d 1024), and based upon our independent review of the record the verdict was not contrary to the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Defendant waived his right to challenge the evidence seized from his apartment by failing to make a suppression motion (see, CPL 710.70 [3]; [967]*967People v Bertolo, 65 NY2d 111, 121; People v Martinez, 105 AD2d 873, 874). In view of the court’s curative instructions, the prosecutor’s improper comments on summation did not deprive defendant of a fair trial. On this record defendant’s sentence is not excessive. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Connell, J. — robbery, first degree; grand larceny, fourth degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Ford, 66 NY2d 428, 437), the evidence amply supports the verdict. Credibility of the witnesses was for the jury to resolve (see, People v De Tore, 34 NY2d 199, 206-207, cert denied sub nom. Wedra v New York, 419 US 1025; People v Christian, 139 AD2d 896, Iv denied 71 NY2d 1024), and based upon our independent review of the record the verdict was not contrary to the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Defendant waived his right to challenge the evidence seized from his apartment by failing to make a suppression motion (see, CPL 710.70 [3]; [967]*967People v Bertolo, 65 NY2d 111, 121; People v Martinez, 105 AD2d 873, 874). In view of the court’s curative instructions, the prosecutor’s improper comments on summation did not deprive defendant of a fair trial. On this record defendant’s sentence is not excessive. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Connell, J. — robbery, first degree; grand larceny, fourth degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 A.D.2d 966, 544 N.Y.S.2d 761, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-oneil-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack